The UK Supreme Court today handed down its long-awaited judgment in the three linked motor finance commission appeals: Johnson v FirstRand Bank, Wrench v FirstRand Bank, and Hopcraft v Close Brothers ([2025] UKSC 33).
What the Supreme Court found
The Court partially overturned the Court of Appeal's broad October 2024 ruling. It found that car dealers do not owe consumers a fiduciary duty, closing off the wider commission disclosure route established last year.
However, the Court confirmed that the unfair relationship route under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 remains a valid path for claims. Where a DCA was not properly disclosed, and particularly where the commission was high as a proportion of the total cost of credit, the relationship may be found to be unfair.
In the lead case, Mr Johnson was awarded the full commission amount (£1,650.95) plus interest, because a commission representing 55% of his total finance cost had not been disclosed.
What this means in practice
The scope for claims is narrower than it was following the Court of Appeal ruling. Non-DCA commission cases are largely out of scope unless there is evidence of particularly high or poorly-disclosed commission. DCA cases with inadequate disclosure remain on strong ground.
The FCA responded the same week, confirming it will consult on a Consumer Redress Scheme by October 2025.
Not yet checked?
If you financed a car before January 2021 and haven't checked yet, now is still the time. DCA claims remain valid where disclosure was inadequate, which was the standard for most agreements written before the ban.